2026-07-23 19:09 UTC
Replies (23)
-
@Epic_Null@infosec.exchange 2026-07-23 20:41
@corbet@social.kernel.org What's extra fun is how this means they were not following procedure. Cause if they were, they would have already had a backup of the device, making the durress code a big nothingburger.
-
@SpaceLifeForm@infosec.exchange 2026-07-23 21:14
@corbet@social.kernel.org Should have never given up any code in the first place without a warrant.
-
@Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it 2026-07-24 02:42
@corbet@social.kernel.org Love how federal agents can break the law with impunity but then turn around and prosecute someone for something that *they* ultimately caused by doing something illegal..
-
@molytov@infosec.exchange 2026-07-24 09:38
@corbet@social.kernel.org One tactic to combat this kind of authoritarian persecution is to make an encrypted back up hosted remotely, wipe the device before crossing the border, and then restore the data when it's safe. If you're threatened into unlocking it, there would be a much lower risk of anything useful to the authorities being found, but you should always consider a device that's been seized or searched completely compromised and replace it. But then you have to ask, will pigs start treating devices without your entire life on them as "evidence of criminal activity" because "only a criminal would factory reset their device"? There will always be tools and tactics like this, but the actual solution to this shit is to abolish the institutions and structures that enable people to impose this "authority" over others.
-
@hrw@society.oftrolls.com 2026-07-23 20:22
@corbet@social.kernel.org Next step: code which will switch to harmless account, while erasing main one first.
-
@Quasit@beige.party 2026-07-23 20:28
@corbet@social.kernel.org He wasn't given his Miranda rights, so he wasn't under arrest. Which should mean that he was perfectly free to do whatever he wanted with his phone, including erase it. But realistically he'll probably be put away for life anyway. This country needs a revolution.
-
@mike805@noc.social 2026-07-23 20:34
@corbet@social.kernel.org The feature worked as intended.
-
@Li@tech.lgbt 2026-07-23 21:10
@corbet@social.kernel.org person was under duress, they shared the durress code. lol feature works
-
@pettanko@tsundere.love 2026-07-23 21:35
@corbet@social.kernel.org destroying evidence to prevent the cops from getting their hands on it has long been illegal, the state is probably on solid ground on with that argument.
-
@negative12dollarbill@techhub.social 2026-07-23 21:39
@corbet@social.kernel.org This is like "putting your PIN into the ATM backward" only it actually works!
-
@agitatra@berlin.social 2026-07-23 23:43
@corbet@social.kernel.org Just repeat after me: Do not travel to the USA! Under no cicumstances, at least until the current administration is gone!
-
@Manic_Walrus@mastodon.social 2026-07-23 23:58
@corbet@social.kernel.org bloody good on him, kept other protestors safe, destroyed information about himself. This common misconception that you have to be a drug dealer or criminal to secure your own device is a wild take. Wanting privacy, shouldn't label you a crook.
-
@maxoakland@mastodon.social 2026-07-24 00:05
@corbet@social.kernel.org there’s no justifiable legal basis for that. If there’s a law, it’s unconstitutional. Freedom of speech would obviously dictate that you have the right to speak the duress code Our court system has been corrupted and we need to stop tolerating these clear violations of the constitution
-
@muddle@infosec.exchange 2026-07-24 00:39
@corbet@social.kernel.org I couldn't possibly comment here.
-
@JizzelEtBass@kolektiva.social 2026-07-24 02:23
@corbet@social.kernel.org "Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights" 18 U.S.C. § 2232 a) "...the Government's lawful authority to take such property" The government had no lawful authority absent a search warrant, thus 18 USC § 2232 shouldn't apply.
-
@htpcnz@mastodon.social 2026-07-24 02:28
@corbet@social.kernel.org won't be long before broligargy and its minions in the governments pass a law saying any device not running the corporate overlords software unaltered is a crime, then don't even have to bother to unlock to see supposed unlawful content in it to put one in jail and throw away the key.
-
@IT_SME@mastodon.social 2026-07-24 02:30
@corbet@social.kernel.org GrapheneOS should incorporate fingerprint unlock as a method of initiating the "duress code". That way, you can just continue telling them "No. Stop. Don't." and when they press your finger on the screen anyway it will be 100% their own doing. Side note: I can only imagine saying it with the same enthusiasm as Willy Wonka telling Mike Teavee not to climb into the Wonkavision.
-
@elaterite@mastoart.social 2026-07-24 05:38
@corbet@social.kernel.org Ha ha ha, that's great! And my defense would be: "Oh, shit, I'm sorry, I was really nervous and I'm super-dyslexic, and darn if I didn't give you the wrong code. Sorry." 🙄
-
@AbramKedge@beige.party 2026-07-24 06:08
@corbet@social.kernel.org it's worth noting that the article mentions that constitutional rights are suspended at International borders and international airports when questioned by immigration authorities. What it doesn't mention is that recently the No Rights Zone has been extended to 100 miles from any border. Most of the US population have lost most of their rights. You'd think someone would be challenging that policy.
-
@lynn@smol.ch 2026-07-24 06:23
@corbet@social.kernel.org since when is data property lol
-
@jmorris@social.kernel.org 2026-07-24 06:44
@corbet@social.kernel.org how would they prove it was a duress code?
-
@erik@social.ovegard.se 2026-07-24 07:39
@corbet@social.kernel.org it is also interesting the Spanish customs is targeting Google Pixel users for closer inspections. That's something that everyone without GrapheneOS might notice as well
-
@betamatt@ruby.social 2026-07-24 15:05
@corbet@social.kernel.org unfortunately, the cops probably have it right on this one. You’re destroying evidence. If it were normal police, the legal answer would be to refuse to answer any questions, including revealing any passwords. You can refuse to give up a code but you can’t refuse biometric data, which most people probably know by now. Since it’s a border search you basically have no rights. Refusing the passcode is still probably the legal move but they can mess you around a lot.